a fair fare...

[gary]

I'm curious what sort of fare structure the group envisions for PRT.
If people share a vehicle, do they each pay? Do you charge by the
mile, by time, both? Do you charge someone for holding a vehicle idle
while loading, etc?

Here's how I see it. I would say that to encourage car pooling, you
only charge for the trip. I realize that this isn't the bus model, or
even the taxi model, but it would seem to make the most environmental
sense. And holding a vehicle (while loading, etc) should cost the
user, based on time. Perhaps the meter doesn't start ticking until 5
minutes have elapsed, longer if the person is handicapped.

gary s

[Jerry Roane]

gary

10 cents per mile and buy a car every 200,000 miles or when it wears out for $10,000.  At 10 cents a mile carpooling seems like an outdated exercise. 

Jerry Roane

[gary13]

Jerry,

Why would carpooling ever be out of date? If two people take separate
vehicles instead of one vehicle to the same destination (or even part
way together), isn't that a waste of resources, both energy and by
making the second vehicle unavailable to others?

gary

> > gary s- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jack Slade]

That's basically the way I plan it. If people share,they can split the fare between them, or each pays on alternate days. I want to make it the same as if you are taking you kids to their baseball game, using your own car.   Jack Slade --- On Sat, 5/30/09, gary <garyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jack Slade]

I would agree with Jerry if things stay as they are now. However, I think we have not really estimated the kind of world we are coming into. Today, most people would not go far out of their way to save % cents per mile. That is not the kind of world I grew up in.   We were recovering from the 1929 depression when I was young 2 trout hooks cost one cent, and lots of times my parents were hard pushed to give me that penny. How many people do you know now that would dive into cold water to retrieve a hook of that value.   This may come again, when people realize that, in hard times, every nickle counts. I really hope it doesn't get that bad, but it could, if governments keep giving money to people who invent hardly anything useful, and ignore those of us who are trying to make a difference.   Jack Slade --- On Sat, 5/30/09, gary13 <garyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: gary13 <garyd...@gmail.com> Subject: [t-i] Re: a fair fare... To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

Received: Saturday, May 30, 2009, 5:55 AM

Jerry, Why would carpooling ever be out of date?  If two people take separate vehicles instead of one vehicle to the same destination (or even part way together), isn't that a waste of resources, both energy and by making the second vehicle unavailable to others? gary On May 29, 10:27 pm, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote: > gary > > 10 cents per mile and buy a car every 200,000 miles or when it wears out for > $10,000.  At 10 cents a mile carpooling seems like an outdated exercise. > > Jerry Roane > > > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:55 PM, gary <garydst...@gmail.com> wrote: >

> > I'm curious what sort of fare structure the group envisions for PRT. > > If people share a vehicle, do they each pay?  Do you charge by the > > mile, by time, both?  Do you charge someone for holding a vehicle idle > > while loading, etc? > > > Here's how I see it.  I would say that to encourage car pooling, you > > only charge for the trip.  I realize that this isn't the bus model, or > > even the taxi model, but it would seem to make the most environmental > > sense.  And holding a vehicle (while loading, etc) should cost the > > user, based on time.  Perhaps the meter doesn't start ticking until 5 > > minutes have elapsed, longer if the person is handicapped. >

[Dennis Manning]

gary:

Fair question. Since PRT is like no other system I think your question falls
into one more of those items that will have to be worked out as the systems
evolve.

I'd hope that however the charging system works that it doesn't follow the
pattern for other basic services like the phone, the net, or power where the
billing systems are so screwed up it's nearly impossible to understand how
you are charged.

I think your idea is about right. Charge the person who commands the trip.
Leave it to him/her if they wish to share the trip cost with whomever joins
them.

As far as charging for length of the trip that's really tricky. That's the
way customers were charged for long distance phone calls in the past. That's
all changed, and call distance doesn't matter much any longer.

Bottom line: Without some hands on experience we won't know what payment
system will evolve.

Dennis

----- Original Message -----
From: "gary" <garyd...@gmail.com>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:55 PM
Subject: [t-i] a fair fare...


>

[Kirston Henderson]

on 5/30/09 1:45 AM, Jack Slade at skytr...@rogers.com wrote:

I would agree with Jerry if things stay as they are now. However, I think we have not really estimated the kind of world we are coming into.
Today, most people would not go far out of their way to save % cents per mile. That is not the kind of world I grew up in.

We were recovering from the 1929 depression when I was young
2 trout hooks cost one cent, and lots of times my parents were hard pushed to give me that penny. How many people do you know now that would dive into cold water to retrieve a hook of that value.

This may come again, when people realize that, in hard times, every nickle counts. I really hope it doesn't get that bad, but it could, if governments keep giving money to people who invent hardly anything
useful, and ignore those of us who are trying to make a difference.

Jack,

   I fear that you are right on track on this point and that we have only seen the start of the situation.  About the only difference is the slowed start by government attempt to intervene.  In the crash of 29, it occurred almost instantly and no one was able to slow it down.  With the U.S. Government attempting to stop it by printing more and more money, it may get even worse because it may eventually take a wheelbarrow of dollars to buy those fish hooks.  It hasn't been all that long since we have seen this happen in other, smaller countries where the government resorted to just running the money printing presses.

   Now with the U.S. Government owning running two major automobile companies, we are likely headed for Yougo equivalent automobiles that no one will buy, can afford or keep running.  Or perhaps they will start building Obomamobiles that are driven by peddles.  Just think how much that might reduce the carbon emissions!

Kirston

[Kirston Henderson]

on 5/30/09 1:48 AM, Dennis Manning at john.m...@comcast.net wrote:

> As far as charging for length of the trip that's really tricky. That's the
> way customers were charged for long distance phone calls in the past. That's
> all changed, and call distance doesn't matter much any longer.

That is a non-problem if the user is required to swipe a credit or fare
card at each end of the trip. That part has been used by the Washington, DC
subway system for years. Furthermore, the problem of charging more for
added passengers can easily be handled by also adding a charge for the total
amount of electrical power used during the trip. Metering the input power
to the vehicle is not a technical problem nor is adding that charge to the
user's charge. That is the plan that we expect to employ for the eventual
fully automated versions of both our MegaRail® and MicroRail systems.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®

[gary13]

>     That is a non-problem if the user is required to swipe a credit or fare
> card at each end of the trip.  That part has been used by the Washington, DC
> subway system for years.

I'm fairly confident that the future (the near future even) will have
biometric systems that just "know" who you are and charge you
accordingly (with you verbal permission perhaps). So no swiping.

> Furthermore, the problem of charging more for
> added passengers can easily be handled by also adding a charge for the total
> amount of electrical power used during the trip.  Metering the input power
> to the vehicle is not a technical problem nor is adding that charge to the
> user's charge.  That is the plan that we expect to employ for the eventual
> fully automated versions of both our MegaRail® and MicroRail  systems.

Kirston, I like it! I really do think we need to fundamentally charge
people for resources used. That's the only real way to prevent the
waste of resources. Even if energy was free, there are other
environmental costs that would need to be factored in (material to
make the vehicle, heating up the environment, etc).

Regarding the nominal time-based charge for holding a vehicle while
you load it, I don't see any way NOT to do this. Otherwise people
might hold vehicles indefinitely. Obviously no system can allow that.

gary

[Jerry Roane]

gary

Do the math.  As the price of travel goes down through innovation the value of sharing a ride goes down faster.  The trade is wasting time in linking up first for less and less money.  Time is money and this fact is why car pooling has never worked at a useful scale as evidenced by HOV lanes only requiring two occupants not three or four.  In reality people cannot waste that much time collecting and dispersing.  Car pooling is a bad substitute for solar powered guideway cars because it prolongs the time when we keep the same old polluting crap on the roads and highways.  Transportation serves us we do not serve transportation. 

Jerry Roane

[Dennis Manning]

Out here CalTrans has been pushing car pooling for at least 40 years and the HOV lanes are only one manifestation. Building park n ride lots is another. The result is that the average vehicle occupancy rate has dropped. Still they persist, and the goal of raising the occupancy rate is prominent in their planning efforts. Looks they would learn something over that much time.

----- Original Message -----

From: Jerry Roane

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:01 AM

Subject: [t-i] Re: a fair fare...

[Jerry Roane]

Dennis

The family has unraveled and that accounts for the reduction in people traveling in groups in cars.  If they want more people in a car as their goal they should push five or six children per family.  Short of that they need to cope with reality as it is not an alternate reality they wish to be true.  As you say, 40 years is a long time to be delusional.

Jerry Roane

[Dennis Manning]

Jerry:

 

Between my last post and this I gave a quick read of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) executive summary for the Bay area (18 pages). In it you will see that they are still stuck on the "raise the vehicle occupancy rate" delusion. In the 18 pages the words "transit oriented development" are never used. However they could have eliminated 90% of the verbiage if they just said, "Our plan is to push TOD as hard as possible, and to push people into living at higher densities".

 

Mind you this in the face of stating that one of their main strategies is to use "technology and innovation". To all the king's horses and all the king's men "innovation" still means band-aides to fix the existing system. In this exec summary and the whole RTP the terms PRT and personal rapid transit are never used. 

 

And they have the balls to name the thing "Change in Motion".

 

Well at least they have the sense that big changes are coming. They just don't have a clue as to what it is.

 

See: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/DRAFT/1-Overview.pdf

 

Dennis

[gary13]

Jerry,

I think I need to clarify...I'm not pushing people to carpool BEYOND
the one price per vehicle policy. When I go places with my two
teenage daughters I'm sure they would opt for their own vehicles if
the cost was the same (per head, not per vehicle). This is the sort
of thing I think the system should avoid. I completely agree with the
comments about the HOV lanes and such, but I don't think the policy
I'm proposing (per vehicle, not per head) is nearly that radical. I
believe that the cost of PRT trips will be very reasonable, so I don't
expect the economics to be so severe as to force strangers into
sharing vehicles.

Summary: people should pay for resources used. Otherwise they will
waste resources.

gary

On May 30, 8:01 am, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> gary
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Jerry Roane]

gary

I suppose you are missing the underlying reason that sunlight powered cars is a game changer.  In light of a new way to power transportation sunlight is "wasted" if the panels are not powering something.  The philosophical question is then can you waste sunlight?  I do see where I need to clarify my price that is the per vehicle-mile price.  Waste is a good topic to discuss because the trade off for your daughters being seen (assuming they are typical teens) with their parents has value in their value system.  They would probably be willing to spend any amount of your money buying their own ride and if all they waste is a few sunlight seconds then where is the harm?  Just something to think about.  We have been wasteful of fossil fuels for so long it takes a while to wrap our heads around free God provided power where the nuclear waste is 93 million miles away.

Jerry Roane   

[gary13]

Jerry,

Again, it's not just the energy. If my daughters each take their own
vehicles, either you need to manufacture MORE prt vehicles to cover
the increased demand OR make people wait longer for the existing
vehicles.

So just so I understand, are you proposing that my family pays the
same if we take one vehicle or four to our destination?

gary

On May 30, 7:35 pm, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> gary
>

[Michael Weidler]

Dennis - the reason long distance calls now are free of charge is because it really doesn't cost any more to make a long distance connection than it does to  make a local one. Actually moving a vehicle does cost more the farther you go, so there needs to be some kind of mileage charge. --- On Fri, 5/29/09, Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net> wrote:

From: Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net> Subject: [t-i] Re: a fair fare...

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com Date: Friday, May 29, 2009, 11:48 PM

gary: Fair question. Since PRT is like no other system I think your question falls into one more of those items that will have to be worked out as the systems evolve. I'd hope that however the charging system works that it doesn't follow the pattern for other basic services like the phone, the net, or power where the billing systems are so screwed up it's nearly impossible to understand how you are charged. I think your idea is about right. Charge the person who commands the trip. Leave it to him/her if they wish to share the trip cost with whomever joins them.

As far as charging for length of the trip that's really tricky. That's the way customers were charged for long distance phone calls in the past. That's all changed, and call distance doesn't matter much any longer.

Bottom line: Without some hands on experience we won't know what payment system will evolve.

Dennis ----- Original Message -----

From: "gary" <garyd...@gmail.com> To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:55 PM Subject: [t-i] a fair fare... >

[Michael Weidler]

Why would you hold a vehicle at all? Either the entire party is there and ready to board or the next person in line takes the pod.

--- On Sat, 5/30/09, gary13 <garyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: gary13 <garyd...@gmail.com> Subject: [t-i] Re: a fair fare...

[Jerry Roane]

gary13

If the cars can drive themselves back to you then one car can take your daughters one at a time then you.  In the case where your daughters may not want parental presence you would move the car three times and pay three times the rate.  The rate is pennies so unless you are the ultra poor your daughters think you can afford it.  The discussion is what is valued in your daughter's eyes not the minimum you can possibly pay.  At some low rate versus your income picking up a penny from the street is no longer a worthwhile activity.

I am not a pure PRT advocate but dual mode.  The car would be owned and commanded by you, the owner.  Your daughters would control you to get the private ride in the car.  No waiting for anyone but your daughters to finish with the car but at 180 mph their trips will be quick.

Jerry Roane

[gary13]

Michael,

Suppose I take a vehicle to a less used station (nobody waiting for a
vehicle) and I want to run into Starbucks for a coffee. Is it ok if I
block the door open with a newspaper so it stays put just for me?

gary

On May 30, 9:20 pm, Michael Weidler <pstran...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why would you hold a vehicle at all? Either the entire party is there and ready to board or the next person in line takes the pod.
>

> --- On Sat, 5/30/09, gary13 <garydst...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jack Slade]

That looks OK to me, Gary. If I can take a 50-cent PRT ride and get a free $1.50 newspaper I would consider it a bonus.   Jack Slade

--- On Sun, 5/31/09, gary13 <garyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dennis Manning]

This ti-list is a loose format with lots of leeway for the discussions, but this is maybe the most inane thread I've seen. Cramming news papers in doors? You guys can do better.

 

The basic issue of how to charge for PRT is important. It ranges from no charge at all - who pays to ride an elevator? to rather complex alternatives.

 

For my 2 cents I rather favor the system that puts the fare charge on whomever commands the vehicle and that they be charged by the energy the trip uses. The obvious problem here is that the exact fare won't be known until the energy consumed is recorded. That can be solved by letting the customer know a stated fare which is above projected energy costs. If he's traveling light his credit card will receive a modest refund.

 

The guiding principal should be to most closely match the customer cost to what it cost to provide their trip. So far as I know the cost to the PRT provider for a given trip varies more on energy cost than any other item. So why not figure out a way to pay based on energy consumed?

 

Dennis 

----- Original Message -----

From: Jack Slade

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[oded_roth]

Pricing is not a simple issue. Someone should reimburse not only
current energy costs, but also costs of building, maintaining and
operating the all scheme.

In reality PRT pricing would probably be influenced by rivaling
transit systems and their pricing methods and by tough negotiations
with vested interests that will resist a new transit system.

I believe the price of building and maintaining PRT system should be
loaded on the additional value of real estate close to the system, and
the current costs on the customers.

Oded Roth,
http://www.transportationet.com


On May 31, 10:55 am, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> This ti-list is a loose format with lots of leeway for the discussions, but this is maybe the most inane thread I've seen. Cramming news papers in doors? You guys can do better.
>
> The basic issue of how to charge for PRT is important. It ranges from no charge at all - who pays to ride an elevator? to rather complex alternatives.
>
> For my 2 cents I rather favor the system that puts the fare charge on whomever commands the vehicle and that they be charged by the energy the trip uses. The obvious problem here is that the exact fare won't be known until the energy consumed is recorded. That can be solved by letting the customer know a stated fare which is above projected energy costs. If he's traveling light his credit card will receive a modest refund.
>
> The guiding principal should be to most closely match the customer cost to what it cost to provide their trip. So far as I know the cost to the PRT provider for a given trip varies more on energy cost than any other item. So why not figure out a way to pay based on energy consumed?
>
> Dennis
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Jack Slade
>   To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 11:22 PM
>   Subject: [t-i] Re: a fair fare...
>
>         That looks OK to me, Gary. If I can take a 50-cent PRT ride and get a free $1.50 newspaper I would consider it a bonus.
>
>         Jack Slade
>

[gary13]

Dennis,

You may not like the newspaper example, but I can imagine may ways
that people could monopolize a vehicle without moving. I'm waiting
for friends to show up. I'm waiting for the rain to stop before
getting out. I'm waiting for the store to open. If you plan to
strictly charge for energy usage, I suspect this will be a problem.
Energy usage is only one factor. You also have to consider the peak
demand...how many total vehicles are needed for the system. If people
can hold up a vehicle, that's essentially taking the vehicle out of
service.

I work for a construction company that deals with utilities. We
recently installed water meters for thousands of homes in Turlock
where none existed before. Prior to the meters, people had all the
water they wanted. And they acted accordingly. Many times we had to
dig in ground that was absolutely saturated with water. When people
aren't charged appropriately for resources, they abuse the resources.

The comments I've seen in this thread do not seem to appreciate this.
They seem to think it's ONLY the energy usage. That's just not the
case. Vehicles are resources as well. And unless you have some sort
of auto-eject mechanism, your fare system must take this into account.

gary



On May 31, 12:55 am, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> This ti-list is a loose format with lots of leeway for the discussions, but this is maybe the most inane thread I've seen. Cramming news papers in doors? You guys can do better.
>
> The basic issue of how to charge for PRT is important. It ranges from no charge at all - who pays to ride an elevator? to rather complex alternatives.
>
> For my 2 cents I rather favor the system that puts the fare charge on whomever commands the vehicle and that they be charged by the energy the trip uses. The obvious problem here is that the exact fare won't be known until the energy consumed is recorded. That can be solved by letting the customer know a stated fare which is above projected energy costs. If he's traveling light his credit card will receive a modest refund.
>
> The guiding principal should be to most closely match the customer cost to what it cost to provide their trip. So far as I know the cost to the PRT provider for a given trip varies more on energy cost than any other item. So why not figure out a way to pay based on energy consumed?
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Jack Slade
>   To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 11:22 PM
>   Subject: [t-i] Re: a fair fare...
>
>         That looks OK to me, Gary. If I can take a 50-cent PRT ride and get a free $1.50 newspaper I would consider it a bonus.
>
>         Jack Slade
>

>           > gary- Hide quoted text -

[Richard Gronning]

We live in the computer age. Ticketing should reflect this. A ticket should be predicated on distance.
Dennis, I really think that the weight would only add pennies, not dollars. Figure max weight and go from there. A full energy footprint should include those for construction, O&M, and positioning (again, an average)
Oded, I agree! And a profit should also be noted, because of the fact that other transit types are subsidized. And each could easily be calculated for that trip by a computer, and in a number of languages.

If a ticket is the size of a credit card, it would hold a strip that would program the trip. It could be printed with, 1) Energy, 2) Building, 3) Operating, 4) Maintaining, 5) Profit. Each ticket would have these items listed for that trip. The energy would be in BTUs, otherwise we would have overlapping areas. A full breakdown could be accessed in two ways; 1) A passenger could type in his/her email address when a ticket is ordered, 2) The ticket number would access the trip on a web site. If a passenger wanted such information, then a full economic and energy footprint could be accessed. The items would be listed in detail, including other columns showing an approximation of what that trip would be in a bus, LRT, or car. It would show the subsidies as well.

Wouldn't that be an education?
Dick

oded_roth wrote:

Pricing is not a simple issue. Someone should reimburse not only
current energy costs, but also costs of building, maintaining and
operating the all scheme.

In reality PRT pricing would probably be influenced by rivaling
transit systems and their pricing methods

 and by tough negotiations
with vested interests that will resist a new transit system.

I believe the price of building and maintaining PRT system should be
loaded on the additional value of real estate close to the system, and
the current costs on the customers.

Oded Roth,


 "Dennis Manning" 
wrote:
  

The basic issue of how to charge for PRT

 is important. 

For my 2 cents I rather favor the system that puts the fare charge on whomever commands the vehicle and that they be charged by the energy the trip uses. The obvious problem here is that the exact fare won't be known until the energy consumed is recorded. 

So why not figure out a way to pay based on energy consumed?

Dennis
    

[Dennis Manning]

Dick and Oded:

 

I didn't state my case well. Of course energy "only" pricing isn't the way to go since as you point out there many other things that go into the costs. I still think energy is a good way to price in the variable cost for a trip. The energy cost might be about $0.05 per mile, but it's possible to charge $0.15 per mile to cover the other costs. It's really not very much different than paying for fuel in your car.

 

I do agree it won't be a simple issue. If the history of trolley pricing is any indication a political element is quite possible. Mayor's used to like to run on a platform that they would lower the fares. Another example is the way bus fares are set up. Lot's of different types of tickets for different people, and different from city to city.

 

Dennis

  

----- Original Message -----

From: Richard Gronning

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 7:05 AM

Subject: [t-i] Re: a fair fare...

[Richard Gronning]

Right!
Like, what is the difference between the construction costs, fees for right-of-way, payments to businesses or the other way around, and fees to attorneys for all of above? What I'm saying is that these can be different from one route to another. It would be simple for a computer to figure these out and give a fair fare.

If a passenger can access the info for the fare, then he/she should have that much less to complain about, especially if he/she has a comparison, a computer read-out, with other forms of transportation.

Dick

[Jerry Schneider]

What is being assumed by the "fair fare" advocates regarding
ownership of the PRT system? Private, for-profit or public with
subsidy possibilities? Or a mix of funders, both public and private,
partnership or other forms of ownership.

I suspect that the interpretation of what is "fair" would vary a bit,
depending on ownership. And, just like buses and streetcars today,
there would be numerous fares for different people, times of day,
etc. and maybe even some fare-evasion problems and ticket machines
that don't work.

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

You are right about who owns the system being able to charge anything they wish any time they choose.  Price of fare has little relationship to cost to produce the value.  What if the economics and pollution credits come out that we need to pay passengers to ride the better system that would instantly obsolete bus rides that charge a fare or light rail rides that must operate for another 40 years before they are scrapped with a fare. 

I am suggesting putting the whole transit structure top to bottom on its head.  If we can create enough value and profit from the extra operations of the guideway such that moving people is free or a budget surplus (profit) then other forms of transit that have no other ways of generating revenue will either need richer government bailouts or close operations.  The bus cannot rent out its place in the street at night for other profitable enterprises but a guideway system can.  The bus cannot rent its spare fuel tank volume to the power company for any money.  That puts the bus at a disadvantage with respect to guideway systems.  Light rail can share the railroad rails with nightly freight to pay the bills as envisioned by CapMetro but so far that dream and vision has been nightmare and blindness.  Blind to the safety rules causing considerable fines being issued for real safety risks taken by the novice staff.  Nightmare because they pissing away one hundred million dollars of tax payer money on track that is shared and they still do not have a start of service date.  They should have just built a passenger rail line next to the freight rail line and not tangled the two together causing not just fines and no start date but fundamentally important no people to freight train crashes while the paid professional driver is texting to railroad fans and kills a few customers and himself. 

I agree with modern billing for mobility.  It should be totally seamless, wireless and comprehensive billing information to show you the comparison to all the other options for movement.  In the modern age this auto billing is easier than less sophisticated techniques to collect money like outdated tickets or tokens.

If a city buys a system from one of us suppliers then the budget surplus would go to city projects.  If the government wants to do a public/private partnership then the surplus would be divided in some inherently unfair way.  If the toll road/guideway is strictly private then who knows how much the fare will be.  It has to be less than gasoline or diesel but that is a lot of money if the fare is a cost match with SOV diesel/gasoline ICE cars. 

Jerry Roane 

[Jerry Schneider]

At 11:25 AM 5/31/2009, Jerry R wrote:

>I agree with modern billing for mobility. It should be totally
>seamless, wireless and comprehensive billing information to show you
>the comparison to all the other options for movement. In the modern
>age this auto billing is easier than less sophisticated techniques
>to collect money like outdated tickets or tokens.

I don't know what proportion of people do not pay their credit card
bills or just make minimum payments, but I wonder if that might be a
problem. Just sending people a periodic bill (monthly, in the mail?)
doesn't mean that they will pay it promptly. Another example is
parking tickets. My impression is that a lot of people don't pay them.

>If a city buys a system from one of us suppliers then the budget
>surplus would go to city projects. If the government wants to do a
>public/private partnership then the surplus would be divided in some
>inherently unfair way. If the toll road/guideway is strictly
>private then who knows how much the fare will be. It has to be less
>than gasoline or diesel but that is a lot of money if the fare is a
>cost match with SOV diesel/gasoline ICE cars.

I would expect any owners to be interested in profit maximization or
subsidy minimization. And the fares probably would have to be
competitive with or less than the costs of alternative travel
options. it would be a very complex calculation and would have to be
adjusted periodically as the cost/revenue and market share
proportions work themselves out over time.

- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

[Jerry Schneider]

At 03:32 AM 5/31/2009, you wrote:

>Pricing is not a simple issue. Someone should reimburse not only
>current energy costs, but also costs of building, maintaining and
>operating the all scheme.
>
>In reality PRT pricing would probably be influenced by rivaling
>transit systems and their pricing methods and by tough negotiations
>with vested interests that will resist a new transit system.
>
>I believe the price of building and maintaining PRT system should be
>loaded on the additional value of real estate close to the system, and
>the current costs on the customers.

I generally agree. But I remember the experience of the downtown bus tunnel
in Seattle which cost $500,000,000. When a US DOT
official came to visit it, he said
"we'll never do this again". Wouldn't you expect
that the assessed values of the
downtown properties near this facility would be
jacked up to the tune of $500 M or
more? I tried to find out at the time but ran
into a bizarre assessment tangle that made
it impossible to find out (given a lack of time
and funding). The major high rise buildings
were divided up in to a large number of entities,
making an overall assessment of the
tax assessment adjustments painful, to say the least.
very difficult.

[Jack Slade]

I have it simplified more than that. I am goilg to start with 10 cents per vehicle mile, and adjust it upwards only if that fare is not covering O&M, cleaning, maintenance fund, company costs, and profit. If there a requirement to repay construction costs, then that is included in company costs.   As for newspapers blocking doors, I wonder why anybody would need to reserve a vehicle in a system where there is no waiting time to catch a different vehicle. However, it is realistic to think that some people might actually fall asleep during their ride, and I can think of ways to wake them up.   Jack Slade --- On Sun, 5/31/09, Richard Gronning <rgro...@gofast.am> wrote:

From: Richard Gronning <rgro...@gofast.am> Subject: [t-i] Re: a fair fare...

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com Received: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 2:05 PM

We live in the computer age. Ticketing should reflect this. A ticket should be predicated on distance. Dennis, I really think that the weight would only add pennies, not dollars. Figure max weight and go from there. A full energy footprint should include those for construction, O&M, and positioning (again, an average) Oded, I agree! And a profit should also be noted, because of the fact that other transit types are subsidized. And each could easily be calculated for that trip by a computer, and in a number of languages. If a ticket is the size of a credit card, it would hold a strip that would program the trip. It could be printed with, 1) Energy, 2) Building, 3) Operating, 4) Maintaining, 5) Profit. Each ticket would have these items listed for that trip. The energy would be in BTUs, otherwise we would have overlapping areas. A full breakdown could be accessed in two ways; 1) A passenger could type in his/her email address when a ticket is ordered, 2) The ticket number would access the trip on a web site. If a passenger wanted such information, then a full economic and energy footprint could be accessed. The items would be listed in detail, including other columns showing an approximation of what that trip would be in a bus, LRT, or car. It would show the subsidies as well. Wouldn't that be an education? Dick

oded_roth wrote:

Pricing is not a simple issue. Someone should reimburse not only current energy costs, but also costs of building, maintaining and operating the all scheme. In reality PRT pricing would probably be influenced by rivaling transit systems and their pricing methods

and by tough negotiations with vested interests that will resist a new transit system. I believe the price of building and maintaining PRT system should be loaded on the additional value of real estate close to the system, and the current costs on the customers. Oded Roth, "Dennis Manning" wrote:

The basic issue of how to charge for PRT

is important. For my 2 cents I rather favor the system that puts the fare charge on whomever commands the vehicle and that they be charged by the energy the trip uses. The obvious problem here is that the exact fare won't be known until the energy consumed is recorded. So why not figure out a way to pay based on energy consumed? Dennis

[Michael Weidler]

If you block the door open you are headed to jail and a nice big fine for vandalism and suspicion of terrorism. In other words, leaving anything in the pod or in any way willfully impeding the system is unlawful. Think of it sort of like holding an elevator door open - only with bigger penalties. At best, you are being rude. At worst, you may be up to something. The way the system works is the pod calls central when the door refuses to close. Central uses the on-board and station cams to scope out the problem. If they can't unjam the door, then they call the cops who meet you upon your return and at the very least issue you a very big fine. I still fail to see why anyone would want to hold a particular pod. If it is a "less used station", then the same pod is likely to be there waiting. If someone has taken 'your' pod, then the system will call another one as soon as it senses you entering the station - assuming it hasn't already replaced the pod with a convenient empty.

--- On Sat, 5/30/09, gary13 <garyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: gary13 <garyd...@gmail.com> Subject: [t-i] Re: a fair fare...

To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com> Date: Saturday, May 30, 2009, 10:49 PM

Michael, Suppose I take a vehicle to a less used station (nobody waiting for a vehicle) and I want to run into Starbucks for a coffee.  Is it ok if I block the door open with a newspaper so it stays put just for me? gary On May 30, 9:20 pm, Michael Weidler <pstran...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Why would you hold a vehicle at all? Either the entire party is there and ready to board or the next person in line takes the pod. > > --- On Sat, 5/30/09, gary13 <garydst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > From: gary13 <garydst...@gmail.com>

> Subject: [t-i] Re: a fair fare...

[Michael Weidler]

--- On Sun, 5/31/09, Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net> wrote:

From: Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net> Subject: [t-i] Re: a fair fare...

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 12:55 AM

This ti-list is a loose format with lots of leeway for the discussions, but this is maybe the most inane thread I've seen. Cramming news papers in doors? You guys can do better.

The basic issue of how to charge for PRT is important. It ranges from no charge at all - who pays to ride an elevator? to rather complex alternatives. ============= The tenants of the building pay for the elevator service. Ain't nothing free.   For my 2 cents I rather favor the system that puts the fare charge on whomever commands the vehicle and that they be charged by the energy the trip uses. The obvious problem here is that the exact fare won't be known until the energy consumed is recorded. That can be solved by letting the customer know a stated fare which is above projected energy costs. If he's traveling light his credit card will receive a modest refund. ============================== I am assuming we are talking about a metro area ride not some cross country long distance trip. If so, charging for different weights is way too picky for passenger service.   The guiding principal should be to most closely match the customer cost to what it cost to provide their trip. So far as I know the cost to the PRT provider for a given trip varies more on energy cost than any other item. So why not figure out a way to pay based on energy consumed? ============ One would hope there was substantial profit built into the ticket. Substantial enough to cover the occasional pod with a passenger load of greater than 1.2 persons.   Dennis

[gary13]

Michael,

So can you be more specific? How many minutes can I hold the vehicle
in place before you would summon law enforcement? Forget the
newspaper example. Assume I'm just trying to get my family into the
same vehicle, I've already loaded the luggage and don't want to take
it out again. Actually, you don't even need an example to answer the
question. It's very simple. How many minutes do I get before I've
broken the law?

gary

On May 31, 4:17 pm, Michael Weidler <pstran...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you block the door open you are headed to jail and a nice big fine for vandalism and suspicion of terrorism. In other words, leaving anything in the pod or in any way willfully impeding the system is unlawful. Think of it sort of like holding an elevator door open - only with bigger penalties. At best, you are being rude. At worst, you may be up to something.
>
> The way the system works is the pod calls central when the door refuses to close. Central uses the on-board and station cams to scope out the problem. If they can't unjam the door, then they call the cops who meet you upon your return and at the very least issue you a very big fine.
>
> I still fail to see why anyone would want to hold a particular pod. If it is a "less used station", then the same pod is likely to be there waiting. If someone has taken 'your' pod, then the system will call another one as soon as it senses you entering the station - assuming it hasn't already replaced the pod with a convenient empty.
>

[Michael Weidler]

Law enforcement is summoned by the people at Central Control. It is not automatic. After a few minutes central is notified that a particular pod has an issue. Central then looks at the video footage.

--- On Sun, 5/31/09, gary13 <garyd...@gmail.com> wrote: